Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I have no problem with this law. Perhaps those politicians who oppose it should state why they don't think a person who has been convicted three times for violent offenses should be considered a dangerous offender when they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are.

What is the matter with putting the onus on people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be a danger to those around them? Who cares about the cost of putting them in jail. What about the cost of leaving them out? Unfortunately the Charter of Rights doesn't seem to say anything about the rights of crime victims.

We are not debating California's three strike law but the one that was tabled in our Commons. They are not remotely the same and using California as an example is a red herring.

"Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...